• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Military Commissions Act (1 Viewer)

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
With the passage of the Military Commissions Act recently by Congress we have officially said goodbye the good ole US of A as we once knew it. We are no longer protected by the Bill of Rights and the Bush Administration has effectively nuetralized our Constitution.

By outlawing the "writ of Habeas Corpus", anyone ( foreign or domestic) citizen or not, can be arrested and never see the inside of a courtroom for the rest of their lives. Because if you can't get to judicial review, you can't ask why you are incarcerated. And if they keep postponing your arraignment indefinately, there is no vehicle for you to take to expedite your case.

You may think this law is just for terrorists. But the wording of the bill makes it legal for the President to decide anyone who is a threat can be locked up. No checks and balances. No judicial oversight. Just a dictatorship. Remember, Hitler was elected and legally obtained his dictatorship before the carnege began.

If anyone would like to get more info on this, Keith Oberman does a much better job than I could explaining the ramifications of this bill at the following link.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/#43178


One last item, anyone of you that supports this bill
I hope you rot in hell for all eternity!
 
No non citizen has ever enjoyed the "writ of Habeas Corpus" so I don't see the problem here?:confused:
 
Deegan said:
No non citizen has ever enjoyed the "writ of Habeas Corpus" so I don't see the problem here?:confused:
If the president deems the individual a national security threat regardless of citizenship, well then, out goes any law protecting said citizens rights.
 
jfuh said:
If the president deems the individual a national security threat regardless of citizenship, well then, out goes any law protecting said citizens rights.

I will really have to read this new law first, I can't honestly respond to any concerns yet, I suggest some others do the same.

The link provided is to something other then the law, and is not helpful at all.
 
We are no longer protected by the Bill of Rights and the Bush Administration has effectively nuetralized our Constitution.

We?

Are you a terrorist? I'm not. All the protection I need is still in place last I heard.

Sucks for the terrorists though.
 
Originally posted by Captain America
We?

Are you a terrorist? I'm not. All the protection I need is still in place last I heard.

Sucks for the terrorists though.
You would do well to research this subject a little more. It is not necessary for you to be a terrorist. All you have to be is considered a threat by the President and they can lock you up. And per this bill, it is the Aministrations decision as to when you go to court. So you can be postponed indefinately and there's nothing you can do about.

You think he is only concerned about terrorists when he requested phone records for over 200 million Americans? Is there that much terrorism? When you look at this in light of all those detention centers Halliburton built around the country and the rush to get this bill into law before the elections and the current climate the country has regarding the GOP, the picture is not a good one.

But you have to decide for yourself.
 
Originally posted by Deegan:
No non citizen has ever enjoyed the "writ of Habeas Corpus" so I don't see the problem here?
The way the bill is written, you will not get the chance to exercise yours. You have to be in court to do it. And it is the President who decides when you go to court.
 
Deegan said:
No non citizen has ever enjoyed the "writ of Habeas Corpus" so I don't see the problem here?:confused:


Actually, the Constitution does not protect the rights of U.S. citizens, but rather it protects the rights of individuals on United States soil. A U.S. citizen enjoys no constitutional protections while in another country and under the juridiction of that nation's government. Conversely, if a Canadian steps across the border, they enjoy the same constitution protections as a U.S. citizen would.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually, the Constitution does not protect the rights of U.S. citizens, but rather it protects the rights of individuals on United States soil. A U.S. citizen enjoys no constitutional protections while in another country and under the juridiction of that nation's government. Conversely, if a Canadian steps across the border, they enjoy the same constitution protections as a U.S. citizen would.

Yes, that's the romantic version, but not at all the reality.

As I said, I'll have to do some more research, again, I suggest you do the same, as many a judge has refused constitutional rights to immigrants, especially those who as you put it, "steps across the border" and these will be the people effected, I'm quite sure.

Still, if there is a chance for a citizen to be effected unjustly, I'm sure it will all come out soon.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Deegan:
Yes, that's the romantic version, but not at all the reality.

As I said, I'll have to do some more research, again, I suggest you do the same, as many a judge has refused constitutional rights to immigrants, especially those who as you put it, "steps across the border" and these will be the people effected, I'm quite sure.

Still, if there is a chance for a citizen to effected unjustly, I'm sure it will all come out soon
All you have to do is click the link I provided to get you started.
 
History should record October 17, 2006, as the reverse of July 4, 1776.

From the noble American ideal of each human being possessing “unalienable rights” as declared by the Founders 230 years ago amid the ringing of bells in Philadelphia, the United States effectively rescinded that concept on a dreary fall day in Washington.

At a crimped ceremony in the East Room of the White House, President George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 while sitting behind a sign reading “Protecting America.”

On the surface, the law sets standards for harsh interrogations, prosecutions and executions of supposed terrorists and other “unlawful combatants,” including al-Qaeda members who allegedly conspired to murder nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

“It is a rare occasion when a President can sign a bill he knows will save American lives,” Bush said. “I have that privilege this morning.”

But the new law does much more. In effect, it creates a parallel “star chamber” system of criminal justice for anyone, including an American citizen, who is suspected of engaging in, contributing to or acting in support of violent acts directed against the U.S. government or its allies anywhere on earth.

The law strips “unlawful combatants” and their alleged fellow-travelers of the fundamental right of habeas corpus, meaning that they can’t challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, at least not until after they are brought before a military tribunal, tried under special secrecy rules and then sentenced.

One of the catches, however, is that with habeas corpus suspended these suspects have no guarantee of a swift trial and can theoretically be jailed indefinitely at the President’s discretion. Given the endless nature of the “global war on terror,” suspects could disappear forever into the dark hole of unlimited executive authority, their fate hidden even from their families.

While incarcerated, the “unlawful combatants” and their cohorts can be subjected to coercive interrogations with their words used against them if and when they are brought to trial as long as a military judge approves.

The military tribunals also could use secret evidence to prosecute a wide range of “disloyal” American citizens as well as anti-American non-citizens. The procedures are similar to “star chambers,” which have been employed historically by absolute monarchs and totalitarian states.

Even after the prosecutions are completed, the President could keep details secret. While an annual report must be made to Congress about the military tribunals, the President can conceal whatever information he chooses in a classified annex.

False Confidence

When Congress was debating the military tribunal law in September, some Americans were reassured to hear that the law would apply to non-U.S. citizens, such as legal resident aliens and foreigners. Indeed, the law does specify that “illegal enemy combatants” must be aliens who allegedly have attacked U.S. targets or those of U.S. military allies.

But the law goes much further when it addresses what can happen to people alleged to have given aid and comfort to America’s enemies. According to the law’s language, even American citizens who are accused of helping terrorists can be shunted into the military tribunal system where they could languish indefinitely without constitutional protections.

“Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” the law states.

Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy [presumably U.S. military allies, such as Great Britain and Israel], shall be punished as a military commission … may direct. …

Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct. …

Any person subject to this chapter who conspires to commit one of the more substantive offenses triable by military commission under this chapter, and who knowingly does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission … may direct.” [Emphases added]

In other words, a wide variety of alleged crimes, including some specifically targeted at citizens with “an allegiance or duty to the United States,” would be transferred from civilian courts to military tribunals, where habeas corpus and other constitutional rights would not apply.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/101806.html
I wonder if this is how it went in Weimar, Germany. Notice the operative word any person "accused"...

We used to be considered innocent until "proven" guilty. Now we are innocent until "accused" of being guilty.
 
Deegan said:
Yes, that's the romantic version, but not at all the reality.

As I said, I'll have to do some more research, again, I suggest you do the same, as many a judge has refused constitutional rights to immigrants, especially those who as you put it, "steps across the border" and these will be the people effected, I'm quite sure.

Still, if there is a chance for a citizen to be effected unjustly, I'm sure it will all come out soon.

No, there are no exceptions. For example, do you honestly believe that an illegal imigrant can be tried for a crime in the United States and not provided with access to legal council? How about a non-citizen on U.S. Soil presumed guilty until proven innocent. Unless a constitutional provision specificially states that it applies only to citzens, it applies to anyone on U.S. soil. That is constitutional law 101.
 
Originally posted by SouthernDemocrat
No, there are no exceptions. For example, do you honestly believe that an illegal imigrant can be tried for a crime in the United States and not provided with access to legal council? How about a non-citizen on U.S. Soil presumed guilty until proven innocent. Unless a constitutional provision specificially states that it applies only to citzens, it applies to anyone on U.S. soil. That is constitutional law 101.
One of the things I used to think made America great was that our laws were so universal. I hope I get to think that way again one day.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, there are no exceptions. For example, do you honestly believe that an illegal imigrant can be tried for a crime in the United States and not provided with access to legal council? How about a non-citizen on U.S. Soil presumed guilty until proven innocent. Unless a constitutional provision specificially states that it applies only to citzens, it applies to anyone on U.S. soil. That is constitutional law 101.

You mean like the first amendment, 101 my butt...................


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/court022599.htm

Just read how the SCOTUS ruled recently, then pretend there are "No exceptions":confused:
 
Deegan said:
You mean like the first amendment, 101 my butt...................


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/court022599.htm

Just read how the SCOTUS ruled recently, then pretend there are "No exceptions":confused:

Did you read the case?

"The Supreme Court sharply limited the First Amendment rights of illegal immigrants yesterday, ruling that people here unlawfully cannot shield themselves from deportation by claiming the government is trying to banish them simply because of their controversial political views."

Basically, the court said that if you have no legal right to be here, then you cannot stay here simply by saying that the government is trying to limit your free speech. The courts did not limit the rights of individuals on American soil, it merely stated that an illegal cannot just start evoking free speech and use that as an excuse for not being deported.

I stand by my original point.
 
You said there are no exceptions, you are wrong, but stand by it all you would like, this law now makes it even more clear, terrorists are not going to hide behind our rights. You asked about a lawyer for instance, they have no right to an attorney they can't pay for, so that right there tells you that you are incorrect in your "no exceptions" statement. As I say, I still appreciate the romantic gesture, and I believe we can do this rationally, and without making the constitution, a suicide pact.
 
"The president can now - with the approval of Congress - indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions. Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/27091prs20061017.html
Democracy cannot survive with an un-educated population. This bill infers we watch way too much TV to be informed on anything that is really important.
 
Originally posted by Deegan:
You said there are no exceptions, you are wrong, but stand by it all you would like, this law now makes it even more clear, terrorists are not going to hide behind our rights. You asked about a lawyer for instance, they have no right to an attorney they can't pay for, so that right there tells you that you are incorrect in your "no exceptions" statement. As I say, I still appreciate the romantic gesture, and I believe we can do this rationally, and without making the constitution, a suicide pact.
Why don't you address the issue of what can happen to Americans who do have rights?
 
Billo_Really said:
Why don't you address the issue of what can happen to Americans who do have rights?

I'm still trying to find the law, I'm certainly not going to take the hysterical(been saying that a lot around here) advice of the ACLU, who want to give more rights to illegals and terrorists, then we have. I am going to read the law, and wait to hear of any real dangers for American citizens, I'm not ignorant of those dangers, believe me. I'm just attempting to wade through the histrionics at this point, and you're not helping.:doh
 
jfuh said:
If the president deems the individual a national security threat regardless of citizenship, well then, out goes any law protecting said citizens rights.

You have no clue what you're talking about this only applies to aliens certified to be unlawful combatants, under this law only aliens can be stripped of Habeas Corpus and only aliens can be tried by military commission:


(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
has been determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.



‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally

‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.
948c. Persons subject to military commissions

‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter.

948a. Definitions

‘‘(3) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States.


Furthermore; this law will not even strip terrorists of their right to Habeas Corpus:

The New Detainee Law Does Not Deny Habeas Corpus

Fear not, New York Times, al Qaeda’s lawfare rights are still intact.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

There are innumerable positives in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the new law on the treatment of enemy combatants that President Bush will soon sign. Among the best is Congress’s refusal to grant habeas-corpus rights to alien terrorists. After all, the terrorists already have them.

AL QAEDA TERRORISTS DO GET TO CHALLENGE THEIR DETENTION

But let’s ignore that the critics are wrong about the entitlement of al Qaeda terrorists to constitutional or treaty-based rights to habeas. There is an even more gaping hole in their attack on the new law. Congress has already given al Qaeda detainees the very rights the critics claim have been denied.

Last December, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It requires that the military must grant each detainee a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at which to challenge his detention. Assuming the military’s CSRT process determines he is properly detained, the detainee then has a right to appeal to our civilian-justice system — specifically, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And if that appeal is unsuccessful, the terrorist may also seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court.

This was a revolutionary innovation. As we’ve seen, Rasul did not (and could not) require Congress to allow enemy combatants access to the federal courts. Congress could lawfully have responded to Rasul by amending the habeas statute to make clear that al Qaeda terrorists have no more right to petition our courts in wartime than any other enemy prisoners have had in the preceding two-plus centuries. Instead, Congress responded by giving the enemy what are in every meaningful way habeas rights.

For the enemy combatants, habeas corpus, to borrow the Times’s articulation, is simply a “right to challenge their imprisonment” in federal court. So what does the DTA do? It allows a detainee who has been found by the military to be properly held as an enemy combatant to challenge his incarceration in federal court. Under DTA section 1005(e)(2), that court (the D.C. Circuit) is expressly empowered to determine whether the detention is in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States — which, of course, include treaties to whatever extent they may create individual rights.

Thus, the DTA has already granted to our enemies the very remedy critics claim is now being denied. Moreover, the new Military Commissions Act (MCA) does not repeal the DTA. It strengthens it. That is, because the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision created confusion about whether the DTA was meant to apply retroactively to the 400-plus habeas petitions that were already filed, the MCA clarifies that all detainees who wish to challenge their imprisonment must follow the DTA procedure for doing so. But, importantly, the right to challenge imprisonment is itself reaffirmed.

That the DTA does not refer to this right as habeas corpus is irrelevant. It’s not the name of the remedy that counts; it’s the substance. The DTA gives the detainee exactly what habeas provides. Therefore, it would have been pointless for the MCA to add yet another round of habeas.

To understand why this is so, one need only consider the legal restrictions on imprisoned American citizens. If they wish to claim their detention is baseless, they are not permitted to file habeas petitions which simply re-allege claims they have already made (or at least had a fair opportunity to make) during prior legal proceedings (such as the appeal of a criminal conviction, or a previously filed habeas petition). Repetitious claims are instantly disregarded by courts as a form of procedural default known as “abuse of the writ” of habeas corpus.

Given that habeas would not be available to an American for the purpose of rehashing a previously unsuccessful challenge to his imprisonment, why on earth should we extend habeas to an alien al Qaeda terrorist so he can re-litigate under the MCA an argument against his detention that has already been heard and rejected by a federal appeals court under the DTA?


READ MORE: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWNlMjg3YWRlNmNjMTk0NDc1NzE0ZWI2YzBlOGRlNzU=
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, there are no exceptions. For example, do you honestly believe that an illegal imigrant can be tried for a crime in the United States and not provided with access to legal council? How about a non-citizen on U.S. Soil presumed guilty until proven innocent. Unless a constitutional provision specificially states that it applies only to citzens, it applies to anyone on U.S. soil. That is constitutional law 101.

Well you need a refresher course from the SCOTUS decision in ex-parte quirin:

"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
 
Deegan said:
I'm still trying to find the law, I'm certainly not going to take the hysterical(been saying that a lot around here) advice of the ACLU, who want to give more rights to illegals and terrorists, then we have. I am going to read the law, and wait to hear of any real dangers for American citizens, I'm not ignorant of those dangers, believe me. I'm just attempting to wade through the histrionics at this point, and you're not helping.:doh

He's full of sh!t this law does not in anyway apply to U.S. citizens only aliens certified as alien combatants:

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) I
N GENERAL.—Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section
S. 3930—37
1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109–148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection
(e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law
109–163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection
(e):


‘‘
(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
has been determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.


‘‘
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section
1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801
note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear
or consider any other action against the United States or its agents
relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial,
or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained
by the United States and has been determined by the United
States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant
or is awaiting such determination.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect
of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention
of an alien detained by the United States since September 11,
2001.

‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally

‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

948c. Persons subject to military commissions

‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter.

948a. Definitions

‘‘(3) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States.


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually, the Constitution does not protect the rights of U.S. citizens, but rather it protects the rights of individuals on United States soil.

Actually according to the SCOTUS the Constitution only applies to "those aliens who, by lawfully weaving themselves into the fabric of our society, have become part of our national community."

The Constitution is a social contract between the Federal Government and the People of the United States not an international peace treaty between the United States and the rest of the world, nor is it a guarantee to enemy combatants who have violated the rules of war and infiltrated our country incognito as was made amptly clear in the SCOTUS decision of Ex Parte Quirin:

"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
I wonder if this is how it went in Weimar, Germany. Notice the operative word any person "accused"...

We used to be considered innocent until "proven" guilty. Now we are innocent until "accused" of being guilty.

Wow you're such a hack you bolded the wrong part:

Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy [presumably U.S. military allies, such as Great Britain and Israel], shall be punished as a military commission … may direct. …

Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct. …

Any person subject to this chapter who conspires to commit one of the more substantive offenses triable by military commission under this chapter, and who knowingly does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission … may direct.” [Emphases added]

Now just who is subject to that chapter??? Well that would be non-U.S. citizens certified as enemy combatants:

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) I
N GENERAL.—Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section
S. 3930—37
1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109–148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection
(e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law
109–163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection
(e):


‘‘
(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to
hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed
by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who
has been determined by the United States to have been properly
detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.


‘‘
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section
1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801
note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear
or consider any other action against the United States or its agents
relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial,
or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained
by the United States and has been determined by the United
States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant
or is awaiting such determination.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect
of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention
of an alien detained by the United States since September 11,
2001.


‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally

‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.


948c. Persons subject to military commissions

‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter.


948a. Definitions

‘‘(3) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means a person who is not
a citizen of the United States.


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...0enr. txt.pdf
 
Billo_Really said:
One of the things I used to think made America great was that our laws were so universal. I hope I get to think that way again one day.

You thought that our Constitution was an international treaty rather than a social contract between the Federal Government and the people of the United States??? How exactly do you plan on getting back to something that never was???
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom